1997 PLP 1798 (MLD)

Muhammad Yaseen Chughtai, Advocate. Umar Din predecessor‑in‑interest of the respondents/decree‑holders filed a suit for possession against Allah Lok, a step‑brother of the present petitioner/objector regarding the house in dispute in 1983. The suit was decreed in favour of Umar Din by the learned trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 16‑9‑1987. An appeal was filed against the aforesaid decree which was dismissed on 13‑3‑1996. A Revision Petition No.1214/96 was filed by the aforesaid Allah Lok judgment‑debtor which too was dismissed on 23‑4‑1996.

2. During the above period, the present petitioner moved an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. on 15‑3‑1989, wherein, it was contended that the house in question belonged to him and not of the judgment‑debtor. The decree was also challenged inter alia on the grounds of fraud and misrepresentation. The petition was dismissed on 29‑3‑1990.

3. The warrant of possession was issued in favour of the respondents/decree‑holders against the judgment‑debtor, whereupon, an objection petition was filed by the petitioner on 7‑9‑1996 which was summarily dismissed by the Executing Court on the ground that similar issues were raised in the petition under section 12(2), C.P.C. in which a full‑fledged trial had taken place after framing the issues and hence, the objection petition was meritless. The same was accordingly dismissed. The objector/petitioner filed an appeal which was also dismissed on 21‑9‑1996 by the learned Additional District Judge, Shakargarh.

4. The present revision petition is filed on the ground that the objection petition could not be dismissed summarily by the Courts below. In this respect, it was contended that in the previous petition under section 12(2), C.P.C., the decree‑holders had admitted that the objector/petitioner owned some different house than the house of Allah Lok, the judgment‑debtor. In view of that admitted fact, the decree‑holders were allegedly estopped to enforce their decree against the objector/petitioner. To justify the possession over the house, the petitioner relied upon some bills showing that the water connection was in his name. He also contended that he had been paying Hearth Tax Chulla tax in respect of the house in his possession. It was, therefore, urged that the summary dismissal of his objection petition without holding an enquiry was bad in the eye of law as held in 1989 MLD 2503 (Lahore).

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner who has taken me through the record placed with this petition. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner had filed an objection petition under section 12(2), C.P.C. in which he had clearly taken up the plea that house in question was different than the house against which the decree‑holders had obtained the decree qua the judgment‑debtor. That objection petition was admittedly dismissed and the order dismissing it still holds the field. In the present objection petition, the same question has been raised and as such, it cannot be said that the Courts below had committed any irregularity while dismissing the same without holding any enquiry. The holding of an enquiry or trial was not necessary because the issues raised in the present objection petition were substantially the same which were raised in the objection petition moved by the petitioner under section 12(2), C.P.C. As already sail above, the aforesaid petition was tried and dismissed on its merits against which no appeal was allegedly preferred.

6. Even otherwise, the petitioner has no case on merits because the water bill or tax receipt do not indicate the property to which they relate. Hence no benefit can be taken by the petitioner from these documents.

7. In view of the above situation, I have not been convinced that the Courts below have failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in them or they have exercised the jurisdiction vested in them in arbitrary, capricious or fanciful manner. The impugned orders do not suffer from any patent or palpable legal defect, so as to justify interference on the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. The petition is accordingly dismissed in limine. A.A./C‑29/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Revision dismissed.